Am I eligible for any benefits?

[Fandango 1,439]

And we can all compare stories as to how we plan financially for the arrival of our foreign partner, but ultimately how the couple does that is their own business........................................

whoop whoop, passive aggressive thread conversion in progress

Please do try to stay on THIS topic. Address anything else in the appropriate place.

fwiw - saying something like 'it's a good idea to plan financially for the 'what ifs' is a lot different than being snarky to a couple who obviously is doing something that while unconventional, works for them, and neither one seems to be complaining.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

whoop whoop, passive aggressive thread conversion in progress

Please do try to stay on THIS topic. Address anything else in the appropriate place.

fwiw - saying something like 'it's a good idea to plan financially for the 'what ifs' is a lot different than being snarky to a couple who obviously is doing something that while unconventional, works for them, and neither one seems to be complaining.

Well, the TOPIC is whether or not the OP could work right now. The answer to that is pretty simple. No he cannot till he has a work authorization document.

The problem between you and I is an odd one. I actually quite agree with you on many subjects. For instance, I do agree with you that planning ahead is a good idea. I also agree with you that what people do is their own business. The difference between us, I think, is what you call "snark". In other words, it's quite all right for you to "snark" other people when their opinion is different from yours, but it's not all right if say, Myopia "snarks". In other words, it's OK for you to have strong opinion, but not others.

It does make for good amusement though.

[Fandango 1,439]

Well, the TOPIC is whether or not the OP could work right now. The answer to that is pretty simple. No he cannot till he has a work authorization document.

The problem between you and I is an odd one. I actually quite agree with you on many subjects. For instance, I do agree with you that planning ahead is a good idea. I also agree with you that what people do is their own business. The difference between us, I think, is what you call "snark". In other words, it's quite all right for you to "snark" other people when their opinion is different from yours, but it's not all right if say, Myopia "snarks". In other words, it's OK for you to have strong opinion, but not others.

It does make for good amusement though.

Why is it not ok to say 'I think that comment is snarky' if I do?

I certainly can be snarky as well, and I don't say I'm above reproach either. True, the topic is about work authorization, but obviously what I did was comment on something in this thread. It's the evolution of a thread. But to bring in what I said in another thread, was an attempt at bringing personal issues between us into a thread that wasn't relevant. Of course, it goes without saying that it's my opinion - feel free to disagree.

Back to what I was commenting on - 'I'm sure he does' DOES sound snarky to me. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way, but I cannot see any other rationale for it. And the way they choose to raise their child is their business.

Perhaps I'm bringing my own issues into the thread - I'll grant you that. My previous broker (of 6 years) sat me in her office and explained that when she was pregnant 28 years ago, she came back in 6 weeks and her baby was in daycare. And I should come back to work. As if that was relevant to my family, and how we choose to raise our child. To us, it was more important that a parent be with our son at all times. Neither daycare nor my parents are going to raise our child. And since I'm actually self-employed, it is my choice to make, and what my broker did almost 30 years ago is completely irrelevant to my situation.

Needless to say, she's not my broker anymore

Back to why I commented: working 3 jobs while my husband is a SAHD would not be my choice. But it works for them, and the implication that he's being 'lazy' (my inference) or that he has anything to be ashamed of, is quite snarky, and presumptuous at best. Raising a child is hard flipping work, lol...I don't need to tell parents that. And being completely honest, I'd work less being back at work, instead of being home. So the assumption that the SAHP is 'lazy' is just offensive.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Lisa C

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I wasn't bringing up something you said in another thread. See your Post #53 above. Thus my analogy.

And it's certainly up to you if you want to call something snarky. Just don't be surprised if other people comment back to you. You have their opinion, they have theirs. Such is the way of life.

We all bring our own experiences into threads. Maybe our own "issues" also. I think what your broker said to you was wrong and it was wise to go find work elsewhere. I think that's a whole different "issue" though from asking one partner to bear the entire weight of family finances, to the point of physical exhaustion, you know? They are just two completely separate issues, IMO.

Here's my "issue" if you want to call it that. I feel that both people in a marriage should contribute equally in all aspects of the marriage. Wife should bring in money; husband should bring in money. Wife should take care of the kids; husband should take care of the kids. Wife should cook and clean; husband should cook and clean. The scales might get tipped one way or the other in proportion to work times, etcetera, but both should contribute.

Male of female makes no difference to me. If one person is working three jobs to bring home the bacon, then the whole issue of "family" gets tossed out the window. Because that person is going to be physically exhausted and the other person is going to HAVE to take on ALL the household chores. Plus the kids are losing out on time with both parents.

I have no idea if that stay at home guy is lazy or not. If he is, he's not very f-ing smart unless he's got his woman mopping floors and doing all the laundry also. Because as you say, parenting can be hard (IMO the baby part is the easy part but I digress). He's going to be sorry later on that his wife could not contribute more TIME to their kids.

[Fandango 1,439]

I wasn't bringing up something you said in another thread. See your Post #53 above. Thus my analogy.

Yeah, I just realized it's this same thread I blame Mommy-brain, hahaha.

And it's certainly up to you if you want to call something snarky. Just don't be surprised if other people comment back to you. You have their opinion, they have theirs. Such is the way of life.

We all bring our own experiences into threads. Maybe our own "issues" also. I think what your broker said to you was wrong and it was wise to go find work elsewhere. I think that's a whole different "issue" though from asking one partner to bear the entire weight of family finances, to the point of physical exhaustion, you know? They are just two completely separate issues, IMO.

Here's my "issue" if you want to call it that. I feel that both people in a marriage should contribute equally in all aspects of the marriage. Wife should bring in money; husband should bring in money. Wife should take care of the kids; husband should take care of the kids. Wife should cook and clean; husband should cook and clean. The scales might get tipped one way or the other in proportion to work times, etcetera, but both should contribute.

Male of female makes no difference to me. If one person is working three jobs to bring home the bacon, then the whole issue of "family" gets tossed out the window. Because that person is going to be physically exhausted and the other person is going to HAVE to take on ALL the household chores. Plus the kids are losing out on time with both parents.

I have no idea if that stay at home guy is lazy or not. If he is, he's not very f-ing smart unless he's got his woman mopping floors and doing all the laundry also. Because as you say, parenting can be hard (IMO the baby part is the easy part but I digress). He's going to be sorry later on that his wife could not contribute more TIME to their kids.

In a perfect world, maybe it would work like that; but it all depends on priorities. If the couple does not want daycare/grandparents/etc raising the child, then short of working opposite shifts and never seeing each other, it doesn't work.

The assertion that one contributes more/less is what I'm talking about - you said it yourself that he 'dos not contribute' and I still maintain that's an utterly presumptuous and wrong thing to say. Being a SAHP is the hardest job in the world, imo. Your time is not your own anymore. I fondly remember the days of me working, and not having to do anything but that - now, it's not so carefree. There's no clock to push that I'm 'off'. I wouldn't have it any other way though. My husband works, and is the primary breadwinner in the family. He is an awesome partner and wants me to be happy whatever I do, so long as we both come to a compromise that fits into our child rearing plan. So this is what it is right now - which works for us. But if anyone tried to say that he 'contributes' more than I do, (s)he would be mistaken.

Work contributions/ division of responsibilities is not solely decided upon by income.